tv Media Buzz FOX News December 22, 2014 1:00am-2:01am PST
and until then, this is mike huckab this? >> that will do it for sunday morning futures. merry christmas, everybody. >> on the buzz meter this sunday, sony utterly caves by deep sixing a movie after threats from the hackers backed by north korea and try toes shift the blame over this major blow to free speech. >> we have not caved. we have not given in. we have persevered and we have not backed down. >> except that is not quite true. but are the media enabling the attackers by running with those gossipy internal e-mails? jeb bush drawing fire from many 2349 conservative media as well as those on the left as he slides his way into the presidential campaign. >> a lot of conservatives, a big part of the republican base don't like his position on common core, don't like his position on immigration. >> it's now bush against the
hard right and bush in the race well ahead of it, clinton. >> are the media jumping to conclusions about the third bush now likely to make a run for the white house? news outlets swept away by the historic nature of president obama's decision to recognize cuba. are they underplaying the critics who see a cave to castro? plus, bill cosby's camp accuses cnn of reckless one sided journalism for interviewing the women accusing him of sexual assault. by why is cosby attacking the media outlets instead of himself? i'm howard kurtz and this is ""media buzz."" hollywood is hysterical about canceling the movie "the interview." the stars are unloading on twitter. rob lowe, wow, everybody caved,
the hackers won. wow. steve carell whose own project was just canceled. and jimmy kimmel ripped sony on his abc show. >> i think allowing a ruthless dictator of another country to decide what american people can and cannot see in our own country is against, like everybody we're supposed to stand for, right? >> reporters ask president obama about sony's move on very and sony pictures ceo responded on cnn. >> did sony make the right decision in pulling the movie? >> i think they made a mistake. we cannot have a society in which some dictator some place can start im poes posing censorship here in the united states. >> the unfortunate part is in this instance the president, the press and the public are mistaken as to what actually happened. >> well, not exactly. joining us now to examine this debacle and talk politics,
sharyl attkisson, fight for truth amid the forces of destruction and intimidation in obama's washington. jonah goldberg and joe trippy, a democratic strategist both are fox news contributors. but even president obama criticizing sony's decision, how big a blow is this to free expression? >> it's pretty good, but i find it fairley awkward to hear the president lecturing sony on how not to cave on people who are perhaps threatening violence to free speech when you look at isn't that what president obama did when they called youtube and said they should pull down that perfectly legal video an expression of free speech by a director that did absolute will i nothing wrong and they promised to hunt him down and have him arrested. in the end, there was nothing to arrest him for. he was exercising legal free speech and he was put in jail for something unrelated. to date, the only person held accountable in the whole benghazi debacle and someone who is utterly devoid of assault,
ironically. >> what do you make of this, jonah? >> i welcome it. there's a little bit of -- you know, it's rare i'm in the same camp as a lot of these people. but every one of these tweets, i agree with. >> you and michael moore are on the same side. >> yeah. but it has happened. and look, i think that where i object to barack obama on this, and i agree entirely about the innocence of muslims, is that first of all, he can still talk to the movie theaters. he says i wish they had called me in advance. he can still talk to them or he can call them from hawaii. they have phones there. and this was a -- but more of a decision, a systemic failure of the entire political and legal system where everyone had a good enough excuse to be cowardly and no one stepped up and said no, this is not the way we're going to handle this. >> i have a little simple because sony is under pressure
if something happened. but michael says the press and the president don't understand. let's go to other way for a second. if had they released the film into baurchb of theater chains that weren't going to run it and it ran 18 screens and no one showed up to any of the theaters because of the fear of what would happen, sony would be on the other side of a media storm that would have been launched. so it's not clear -- and the one thing i think that the media really fell down on the job on this one was they didn't -- the whole lot of playing up the -- the e-mails and said nothing to educate the public on the guys that cut into the e-mails were not likely to be able to do violence at 18,000 theater locations around the country. >> more on that in the next segment, but we're also seeing sony backtracking. we have to plans to distribute this any way, joen line, dvd, you name it. >> sony has to make its own
decision. i can't tell them what's right, but for the president of the united states, as you said, to pretend like there are no phones in hawaii, the administration has not hesitated to insert itself in issues in which it's not necessarily invited. the idea that it couldn't have provided the support prior to sony making big decisions like this sfled of after the fact criticizing them for it is a little -- >> and sony blaming theaters for a major change. but in fact it was planned to put it in about 40 theaters, heavily secured. everyone wants to point the finger at someone else. >> barack obama did the same thing with the irs e-mails. if only i had known. >> but also, i think one last point on this, talk about a proportionate response, right? rather than -- the only proportionate response, it's not like we can hack the donkeys. the proportionary response is to air this and to figure out how to air it. i'd like to see a stepping up of
the collective media that says we're going to air this. >> it's supposed to be a comedy showing -- it's not even thinly valed fiction showing up the blowing up of kim jong-un's head and it is on fire. it seems like a dumb idea. >> it can be stupid for them to make it, but they can make it and -- >> oh, yeah. they have the right to make the film. >> and by the way, it wouldn't be the first time. but that's not -- what really broke down here was, i think, again, with jonah pointed out is cowardess across the board. this isn't just sony. this isn't just the fear factor out there among the american people. >> and when a dictator is 8,000 -- away is now going to try to blow up a movie theater. jeb bush inching his way
into the presidential race. a lot of people said he wouldn't run and now he's actively explori exploring. the media operation, because there were bush allies in the "new york times" on the same day front page stories, then kind of announces on facebook. is this a new way of getting into patt presidential race? >> yes. and you can tell, when we see the rollouts, the quiet meetings that took place that the "new york times" found out about, these are media strategies that they've decided are best for rolling out their message and getting a maximum amount of coverage in a positive light and that's exactly what happened. >> your magazine national review? kind of a wait and see editorial and nr writer charles cook says the wrong man at the wrong time and in the wrong country. the pundits on your side of the aisle, not enthusiastic about this bush. >> no. i would think even people who consider themselves pro bush or pro jeb in some other context
think this is a bad idea. i don't want him to run. i don't think he should run. he was a fantastic governor of florida. >> has he consulted you? >> no. he has consulted people i know. >> and so it could come to the idea that you've got all of these concerns of commentators, some of how many whom are luke warm on jeb bush, some of who are like you, just go find something else to do. does that hurt him or is he big enough of a name in force that it doesn't matter? >> i think it matters whether it's enough to stop him. it's unclear. there is an enormous headwind on the right against jeb. what jeb has going for him is the right is going to be da fused across a half dozen other candidates and if he can lockdown the establishment, he can beat those guys. but the conservative is not going to give jeb a cake walk on this. >> part of what's happening is both parties have this where you have establishment candidates and insurgents or someone out of a different wing of the party.
if ted cruise hadz had announce he was running or exploring, there would have been pundits coming out in the republican party pointing out all the problems he had and why it's a mistake. jeb bush is a -- to that because of who he is. he references one wing of the party. >> would you know who is giving jeb an open stance? the liberal pundits thinking he's a grownup in the gop. >> look, i saw him at george her better watson bush's 21st anniversary of his presidency at texas a&m. i was blown away by the guy because of -- this is not about the bush name, but he had some thoughtful things to say about where the country needs to go. whether you agree with him or not. now, i'm liberal. i think he would add to the debate if he was in it. but i mean -- >> trippy looking to jeb bush. >> every time i say this, everybody says of course trippy
wants jeb bush. >> one sentence, is it fair or inevitable for the media to raise the dynasty issue for jeb's brother and father were president, is that piling on or is it part of the state of play? >> part of the state of play. my one sentence says the media may act like it doesn't like that, but i think secretly they would like nothing more than to have a bush and a clinton run. >> i think it's totally fair and should be done to hillary clinton, too. >> and you totally fail to break up the consensus. >> i was looking good for a while. of course it should be done because another bush and another clinton, but we shall see if that's how it develops. don't forget to send me a tweet during this hour. @howardkurtz. and we're going to talk in the next segment about the horrible execution style shooting of two new york city police officers. but ahead, bill cosby goes after cnn. why is the guy who don't talk about the sexual media
she's a senator who challenged a budget bill and came close to causing a government shutdown and the media have been hailing her as a big winner. elizabeth warren is on fire. >> but a brilliant political exercise that was. she may well be the hero of the progressive left of the democratic party and a lot of other people. >> here is what chris matthews had to say about another senator who fought the same bill from the other end of the idealogical spectrum. >> ted cruz's stunt over the weekend left his colleagues disparaging him on the record by
name. he's worse than useless. he's a problem. >> do you see a contrast here between the media ion eyezation between elizabeth warren and treeding ted cruz as a wacko bird? >> of course i do. it's become such a stale topic because it's absolutely true. forget elizabeth warren. she was treated as if she was the joan of arc of american politics. >> it's almost -- the pointing them out. >> now, there are -- we never want to be tedious, but there are distinctions to be made when elizabeth warren wanted to shut down the government and part of the wing was blamed for an actual shutdown last year and more americans are mad at ted cruz and he apologized. but i can't help but be instruct by this contrast. >> there was an obvious bias in the way that it was covered. but, again, she made it pretty clear that she wasn't interested in shutting down the government. and i also think, you know, ted
cruz and a lot of the republicans that he graed agrees with are, you know, want -- would like to end all government and go to the extreme of, you know, wrecking the government whereas elizabeth warren is the exact opposite of that probably once more. so i mean, i think the media would -- >> and the love to challenge hillary. look at these headlines. the hill, warren makes her mark. politico, elizabeth warren is on fire right next to that politico headline. on the same screen, ted cruz does it again, meaning here he goes again. >> i disagree a little bit with joe. i don't think ted cruz has provided evidence he wants to wreck government. in general, he's given logical arguments for his viewpoints, whether you agree or not. this is just another example in which some in the media see a liberal who goes even more liberal as a hero and a match rick, but sees the conservative as an ultra conservative as a nut and a crazy and that's just
the way they see it. turning now to the depressing story of the horri horrifying story of two police officers shot downgy a gunman who then killed himself and apparently posted on instagram that he get a couple of pigs in retaliation for the deaths of michael grown and eric gardner. now, al sarptharpton for one sa this is a vicious act of senseless violence and tying it to ferguson is republic rehenceble. but i'm hearing a lot of voice owes cable now blaming anyone who has criticized the police for anything and that doesn't strike me necessarily as fair. >> i don't think it's fair, but you also think there's a point to be made here. we talk about the disconnectioning coverage or the bias between the left and the right in the coverage. i remember vividly the tucson shooter being blamed entirely on michele bachmann and sarah palin and the right wingers. >> and that was wrong. i agreed it was wrong at the time. >> i agree it was wrong and we shouldn't be doing the same
thing in these circumstances. at the same time, when you have al sharpton's mob going out there saying, what do we want? dead cops. when do we want them? now. that is a different thing than anything ascribe to sarah palin's facebook rant and much less hostile than the stuff we've seen on the right. >> the media coverage of this stuff tends to take one action and it's a horrendous one, but take it and start applying lessons from it. like who is to blame? this is a guy who shot his girlfriend, went up to new york -- it's not clear that -- i mean, it could be true that he heard these things and decided to do smith about it. >> it makes for a -- it's an easy way for television to cover it.
>> i say a little bit about blaming violent videos for violence. i think those who commit the violence are guilty of violence. last month, sara meacom gave a speech in which she said we're going to die anyone, let's die for something. i don't blame him. in the media coverage given to al sharpton, there wasn't xhis rat media coverage given to sara. >> thanks very much for joining us. when we come back, are the media guilty of helping the hackers with all the coverage of those sony e-mails? james rosen tackles that question. and later, stephen colbert or rather his blow hard character signing off.
sony pictures. in the "new york times" and on the "today" show he ripped the media for publishing such correspondence. >> hackers who have threatened violence because the studio wants to exercise their first amendment right that everybody else does, the studio wants to release a movie, has stolen this material and now the press is selling it out of the back of a truck. >> and joining us now is fox news chief washington correspondent james, doesn't circuit have a point? did the media aid and abet the hackers? >> first, i think i should say i bring a certainly authority in regard to my own e-mails were illegally hacked and published. the culprit in this instance was the attorney general of the united states. at that time, i don't recall hearing from eric sorkin. it must have been end up on the cutting room floor. >> because he's more interested in hollywood -- >> elsewhere, he said the media are doing this for a nickel.
if it were only a nickel, the media wouldn't be doing it. the entertainment industry is worth $700 billion a year. it's almost 4% of our gdp. the same market forces that align in order to pay george sloonny $15 million for appearing in something like oceans 13 are what account for the news value of these people and their comes and doings and occasionally their pitch correspondence. >> we can debate the news value of everybody getting exercise that certain producers were dissing angelina jolie is a spoiled brat and so forth and more serious issues there, as well. cochair amy pascal and a producer telling racially tinged jokes about president obama and his taste in movies. but we wouldn't know any of this were it not for hackers who were trying to send very chilling messages to the united states and, yet, people in our business, they couldn't resist the clicks and the ratings and the segments of dwelling on the
hollywood -- >> again, to attribute it simply as a lust for clicks i think is pejorative. this is really of news value. these people command a large portion of our economy. and reporters have different kinds of sources all the time with different kinds of motives. they're not always savory. and in the end, the judgments we make about whether to publish this kinds of material has to do with not only the news value, but whether publishing it would reek some greater damage. it cannot be all right for hollywood to publish the papers or dick cheney's e-mails or james rosen's e-mails, but not sony pictures. and for big hollywood to go say that sony pictures e-mails should be off limits but the government should not is, to my eye, rather surprising that the -- would elevate private corporations above the government. >> but surely you recognize that the comments to use your phrase among hollywood producers and george clooney e-mails and
angelina jolie being dissed sa million miles away from the edward snowden leaks, as reprehensible as that was involved secrets around the world involving the u.s. government. >> again, this is a function of a market economy. if we want to invest so much money in aaron sorkin and sara silverman and all the people sounding off in this regard -- and i love some of these people -- it doesn't mean they should be making $15 million for their crappiest picture. >> you sound a little jealous on that front. but you keep coming back to the news value. you and i can disagree on the news value. but what is to stop the hackers now, especially in light of the sony cave, from getting all the meals of the reporters of the "new york times" or of fox news or anywhere else, undoubtedly, it will be embarrassing and aren't we -- i come back to my original question. are we enabling that sort of thing if we say, well, anything, it doesn't matter how it's god
and hackers, it's fair game, let's report on it. >> is it any different from the tabloidy stuff that ran in the tabloid publication of the 50s, the l.a. confidential stuff? a photograph can be just as damaging if not more so than an e-mail. the news media have been in this business for a long time. >> it's different because of how it was obtained. unsavory people get stories and stories less wrong, let's not worry about the providence. >> well, the providence is secondsary to the news value, i would say that, yeah. and i think that was shown in the case of james rosen. right? >> right. well, i did not read your e-mails and -- >> yes, you did. >> i'm glad the attorney general eric holder belatedly said it was a mistake for that to go forward in a case where you were protecting a source. thank you very much. >> thank you. ahead, new york magazine makes a huge plunder on reporting on a stock wizard. >> but first, bill cosby's unloading. will this anti-media strategy back fire?
woman: for soft beautiful feet, i have a professional secret: amopé and its premium foot care line. the new amopé pedi perfect foot file gives you soft beautiful feet effortlessly. its microlumina rotating head buffs away hard skin even on those hard-to-reach spots. it's amazing. you can see it and feel it. my new must-have for soft, beautiful feet. amopé pedi perfect. find it in the foot care aisle or at the registers in these stores.
now back to howard kurtz and "media buzz." bill cosby has a new strategy, beat up on the media. his team's latest target is cnn. just aired a prime time special airing interviews with five accuser and super model beverly johnson. >> and i just kind of cocked my head because at that point i knew he had drugged me. and i was just looking at him and i asked him the question, that you are a mf, arrant? >> you cursed at him because you were conscious enough to know what was happening and you confronted him. >> how many of you were drunk, allegedly? all of you. >> in a better to zucker which was conveniently leaked, cosby
denouncing this saying this reckless approach to, quote, journalism is outrageous. accusers are given a national platform. joining us now is david zurich. it's not like cnn is the only met in work that's covered this. and the letter deals with what beverly johnson did or did not say to cnn. what do you make of bill cosby attacking the network? >> yeah. they're using the language of liable and slander and this is the kind of letter that a media institution gets prior to the lawsuit, a event that essentially says stop or retract. that's what this is. i don't think it's going to be any more effective than any of his other strategies. and if you read that letter carefully, it's from arne singer to je zucker. producers did or didn't do and charges with this and that,
howie, it sounds to me like they were just trying to interview a potential guest, but he's -- >> he has no efd -- >> cnn insiders, regardless, it's a bit of a brushback. >> totally. totally, yes. >> but at the same time, whether it's cnn or a lot other news organizations, fox and everybody else who has covered this story, the coverage has been a little one sided because cosby won't speak. and the lawyers wouldn't come on camera. so we just get statements that don't really address these allegations for, what, 25, 26, 27 women. >> that's the amazing thing. you're not talking about one or two allegations and they're saying you're not vetting them properly. this keeps coming and coming and coming. and it's symptomatic of the fundamental problem here, which is is the kind of posture cosby has assumed of lecturing the media. he's lecturing the media.
his wife is scolding the media. this is not a good strategy. you know, the fact that you -- >> since you brought that up, we're going to do this later. bill cosby put out a statement. he's comparing the coverage to the rolling stones rape fiasco. this man has been portrayed in the media. it is a portrait of a man i do not know and the portrait who many in the media have given a pass. i sympathize with camille cosby, but they're using her to send a message to back off. >> totally. and, again, you cannot -- the tone he has, cosby uses his lawyers to -- to scold the press, to tell the press how to behavior. it's the mistake he made in that first ap interview when he says, if you want to be -- >> if you want to be serious, if you had integrity one wouldn't show this. i'm glad ap did show that. let me move you to michael eric
dyson, msnbc commentator. he disagrees with cosby. he had this to say in the wake of these sexual assault allegationes. >> the very kind of men who would rape women allegedly is the same type of man who would rape a black community, using his powerful foot to cluck down on their necks. >> and that brought a letter from another cosby lawyer says mr. cosby understands but such mean spirited and reckless rhetoric cannot go unchallenged by responsible journalists. pretty harsh stuff. >> it's the same language. this is slunderrus. it's malicious and you have an obligation to stop. the interesting thing, again, is cosby's team is going to the gatekeeper. cnn, nbc news, the world has changed. the media world has changed. even if he could shut down every gatekeeper, there's 9 million other people that would be publishing these accusations. so it's -- it's a weak, weak
strategy by people who don't understand the media world of today. >> you can't shut down this story. you need to be careful about some of these people coming out of the woodwork. but with all these women making these allegations, do you know what a better strategy would be? bill cosby, come on camera and deny it. >> absolutely right. couldn't agree more, howie. >> next on "med"media buzz,"" t furry over a prisoner swap. the media taking the president's side.
dulcolax, for relief you can count on. it was a foreign policy bombshell. president obama announcing the u.s. will establish full diplomatic relations with cuba. after an exchange of convicted spies that included the release of american contractor allen gross. >> it is a beautiful and blustery night here in havanna where almost no one is talking about anything else other than today's diplomatic break through. >> making history, the surprise announcement by the president, the u.s. and cuba agree to normalize relations after more than half a century. op opening up the flood gates for travel and commerce. >> president obama's move starting off a political and media storm. joining us now, rick brunell and in new york julie roginski.
rick, would you say the underlying tone of the coverage of story that most of us did not see coming was that this was a historic, strong, diplomatic break through? >> it was a travel story for most of these reporters. look, this was a prisoner swap. and you saw peter baker in the in, times go out of his way twice saying the white house line, which is allen gross was not traded for a prisoner swap. however, barack obama said, when he was talking to castro, that he was working out the details for allen gross. so the prisoner swap story was completely missed by all of the reporters and, actually, pushed as a positive thing. you saw tracy wilkinson in the "l.a. times" say that the prisoner swap was enormously dfl to both sides. there was really no discussion of the seriousness of a prisoner swap. >> and julie, the story of the prisoner swap, i think, soon
became superseded by a story of diplomatic relations with cuba. but the subbliman message to me was, well, we do business with china, we do business with russia, and now this last relic of the cold war is vanishing and we'll do business with cuba. >> yeah. it was a historic event in the sense that we have had this relationship with cuba now since well before i was born and probably going on three generations now that we've had this antipathy towards cuba that was not in line with our relationships with their number one sponsor which is the former soviet union which we did have diplomatic relations since 1933. nixon went to china. but cuba has a sort of romantic notion in our nation's history, not just baht because of the cube bans living in miami but -- >> did that play up the notion of havanna as this lovely capital? >> it's in our hemisphere. it's an old cold war relic
phrase. so, of course, the bay of pigs, the cuban missile crisis, the they're 90 miles from florida. so, of course, of course this is something that is probably much more important to us in the narrative than it would be, for example, as re-establishing relationships even not with whom we fought a war, but a war that was a very long way away from our source. >> right. rick, every story and every tv segment i saw, at least that first day, quoted or had marco rubio, emerged as the leading critic of the obama administration recognizing the castro regime. there was something that went to bob manendez who has been critical of this. you can't say the coverage has been totally one sided, can you? >> yeah, you can, howie. if you look at peter baker's story in the "new york times," he didn't say anything about human rights until the 15th paragraph. the 15th paragraph of the "l.a. times" story said the word communism for the first time. this was an approach of coverage. i don't think that political reporters are equipped to cover a foreign policy break through
like this. they missed a whole bunch of facts. the embargo has been very unpopular around the world and the pope, this whole angle on the pope, the previous pope and this pope has been against the embargo for a long time. this is nothing new. but you didn't get that in the coverage. this seems like a brand new thing. >> violations it's been well documented were certainly de-emphasized. r. you know, if you look at the editorial of all these newspapers, you have the bifurcation, a strong democratic market and strong republican. so we're living in a bizarre world situation here where it doesn't align politically. you see them in the media coverage. you see them in the "new york times." the "new york times" was very much for what the president did,
"the washington post," their editorial board -- >> surprise. >> "the washington post," which you would argue was part of the mainstream media opposes it. the miami herald opposes the tampa bay times and miami supports it. this is really not something you could point to and say, oh, look, the liberal and mainstream media is in steps with the president because they're not. >> that contrast was interesting. julie, rick, thanks very much for joining us this sunday. after the break, an indictment of the ebola coverage and politifact's lie of the year. whether we all went to far, a media microscope, up next.
time now for our media microscope. >> we begip in dallas where there are new worries tonight. >> on our broadcast tonight, ebola death in this country. >> breaking news, a major scare in new york city tonight with a possible case of ebola. >> politifact is out with its lie of the year. hyped up claims of fear of the disease. stoked by exaggerated claims from politicians and pundits. looking back, the volume and the tone of the ebola coverage over what we now know were a handful of cases in the united states, did seem out of control. >> i think it depends on how you look at it. the way i look at it and the infectious disease experts i talked to remain concerned about this. if it gets out of control in this country, we will not be able to deal with it. >> we should not just be talking about in the past tense? >> i agree. overtime to almost nothing since they appointed the ebola czar. i don't think that is any
accident, but a strategy, but still cause for concern among infectious disease specialists. i think a good argument to be made that things were made safer and the reason we don't have a worse-case scenario today as far as we know is because there was media coverage and a public outcry that changed the way the government was handling the ebola crisis and instituting new rules at airports and setting up s.w.a.t teams so what happened, the horrible thing that happened to health care workers, hopefully, would not happen again. that is a result, i believe, of the media attention. >> well, with the exception of the "new york times" which is aggressively covered the spread of this disease in africa, you were right. it went from a million to zero and i don't think it's so much that ron klain was appointed the white house ebola czar but seems to be a story for those of us here when americans were no longer infected and that troubles me. >> i think there is some credence to what you say but i also think just having the experience and looking at how
media coverage is feared, i would say once the ebola czar came in, they quit putting out the head of the cdc. no more interviews. >> every channel, every day. >> someone decided, i think, when we give information, they cover it. if we don't give information, it will fall off the stage. i called cdc and i said how many cases are being monitored in the united states. 1,400. i said where are these updates on your website? they said, they're not putting it on the web. this is public information we have a right to know and the media should not hype it, but should cover it. >> you may be right that the president helps shape the agenda and top officials will be made available and i also think if there was still any nurses who potentially had it and they were fighting with their governors overe quarantine rules, we will see more outbreaks. >> more of what we had a couple
magazine fall for this one. high school student made millions picking stocks the headline said. the rumor, said the magazine, was $72 million and it seemed legit. the piece said that mohammad confirmed his networth as being in the high eight figures. more like zero. the kid confessed that he made the whole thing up. reporter jessica pressler initially defended the article but "new york" magazine apologized. we were duped. our fact checking progress was inadequate and we take full responsibility and we should have known better. you think? a teenager, 72 million bucks. a big black eye for the mag zaen. cheryl, how does something like this get published? >> some unthinkable lack of basic journalism. >> not a giant red flashing light, you better check this out. time now for your top tweets on sony pulling its movie and being ripped by all these hollywood stars. when hollywood stars begin to show the tiniest political and
moral guts, their positions on this will be relevant. shirley putroen, these people should be part of the washington, d.c., politics scene. they're good at lying, about everything. thomas gordon, kim jung-iun should be happy. but steven colbert said we didn't miss the magnitude of the milestone. >> because i am a transformational historical figure, that is, i have been on tv. many of the thinkaroty out there are asking what my legacy is. i had a huge impact. >> huge. whatever, it's been fun to tangle with him. well, colbert sustains his pompous, right-wing character for nine long years. but as david letterman successor, he'll face a different challenge, being himself for one thing, but vast swath of middle america.
middle america including conservatives who have been turned off by all the mockery of the anchor character. that's it for this edition of "media buzz" i'm howard kurtz. we're going to miss playing the colbert clips. we still have you on stewart, i suppose. we hope you like our facebook page. we posts a lot of original content there and video and response to your e-mail questions. check us out on twitter, as well. and hour home page where you can follow our columns. we're back here next sunday morning 11:00 and 5:00 eastern for the latest buzz. >> it is monday december 22nd. a fox news alert. breaking developments this morning in the execution of two new york city police officers.
>> this is crazy. >> the chaotic moments after the ambush and the chilling methods from the shooter moments before he fires. >> a city divided. the mayor verses the police. >> blood on the hands on the steps of city hall and the office of the mayor. >> the growing criticism and the push for mayor deblasio to resign. >> new threats from north korea after the interview. the country's new warning to the u.s. and why top lawmakers say the president's response is totally wrong. "fox & friends first" starts right now. >> good morning. you are watching "fox & friends first" on this monday morning. i am leah gabrielle is for ainsley earhardt. >> i amhead heather childers.
watch what i am going to do. those words seconds before he ambushed two new york city police officers executing them as they sat in their patrol car. >> chief correspondent jonathan hunt is live in brooklyn with new information about the hours leading up to the killings. jonathan? > good morning. there is a makeshift memorial now a memorial for the two slaen offic slain officers wenjian liu and rafael ramos who were murdered assassinated by ishmael brins lee. this is where he shot his former girlfriend. she is in critical condition but is expected to survive. he took a bus from baltimore to new york and made his way to the streets of brooklyn on the way posting a prophetic warning